Why do the Klingons have equal technology to the Federation

[Edit_XYZ]

T'Girl wrote:

---

The warriors exist in a societal pocket.

Except they were shown to wield virtually ALL political power in the empire in both the 22th AND the 24th centuries; and much supports this for the 23rd, as well (in this era, though, the smooth forehead klingons did seem competent; they at least had a vocabulary consisting of more than 100 words+snarls).

This is the opposite of a quarantined 'societal pocket'.

Except they're not. Stupid people don't accomplish what the Klingon are shown to have accomplished. Stupid imbecilic fools don't solve problems, efficiently operate starships, build (or conquer) a Empire, and hang on to it for multiple centuries.

Kirk: "And unfortunately, though the Klingons are brutal and aggressive, they are most efficient."

Except the klingons WERE shown to be stupid (the gang of bikers 'macho' flavor). And not even close to 'efficient'.

That's why they building and having a high-tech interstellar empire lacks credibility.

Christopher wrote:

---

That's the insular assumption Westerners make, that the current conditions of our society are a universal constant for all time. But history says otherwise. Progress is not a constant, but varies depending on the society and the era, influenced by factors like the social structure and values, the availability of resources, the incentive for change and growth, etc. Many societies value stability more than change. Many societies turn away from valuing science and innovation. Hell, look at the extreme right wing in the United States and how hostile it is to science and scholarship. Look at how many members of the Congressional Science Committee are Tea Partiers who don't believe in evolution or climate change or, heck, the Earth orbiting the Sun for all we know. If they ever succeeded in taking over the country completely and imposing their values, then progress in the US would go into reverse and we'd end up being a Third World country mired in superstition (heck, we're halfway there already). So there's no guarantee that even the most scientifically progressive and open-minded society will stay that way indefinitely. That's just one of the possible states a society can exist in.

A 'stable' society declines, in actuality.
Look at the chinese and their lacking mastery of knowledge and skills their ancestors acquired and mastered, by the time the europeans arrived.

[T'Girl]

Edit_XYZ wrote:

---

Except they were shown to wield virtually ALL political power in the empire

Wrong, the Klingon aristocracy were shown to be running the show when it came to who was in power, not the warriors. The Klingon council was composed of two dozen of the most powerful families, the great houses.

Not the warriors.

Martok's climb to power by way of being a great warrior was very unusual.

The way I see it, the head of a great house was automatically the leader of that house's military forces, but they didn't come to be a member of the aristocracy simply by being a warrior. That comes through family linage.

a quarantined 'societal pocket'.

I certainly never intended any isolation or 'quarantine.' I was thinking something like the US Marine Corp, who are encouraged to adopt (and be adopted by) a culture separate from the surrounding society.

Except the klingons WERE shown to be stupid (the gang of bikers 'macho' flavor). And not even close to 'efficient'.

First, my culture venerates 'macho' as a admirable quality (it's only bad if you don't have it I guess).

Second, there nothing stupid about being a member of a Motorcycle Club.

Third, to be honest there were a few (very few) stupid Klingons in the mix. However, the average Klingon was shown the possess perfectly normal intelligence and judgement. The Klingon we had the most exposure to, Worf, was often shown to be the one in the room who correctly and quickly appraises a situation, while people like Picard completely misunderstood the situation.

A 'stable' society declines

No, a stable society remain at a constant level. A declining society is one that loses ground, like your example of the Chinese over time.

The Chinese were not a 'stable' society.

[Christopher]

T'Girl wrote:

---

Wrong, the Klingon aristocracy were shown to be running the show when it came to who was in power, not the warriors. The Klingon council was composed of two dozen of the most powerful families, the great houses.

Not the warriors.

Martok's climb to power by way of being a great warrior was very unusual.

Uhh, no, you're confusing "warrior" with "soldier." The warrior class is the nobility of the Klingon Empire -- the great houses like the House of Duras and the House of Mogh. They're basically like knights in Europe or samurai in Japan -- a class of hereditary nobles who are also the society's military leaders, and whose prestige is largely based in their military identity and power. Martok, by contrast, was a common soldier, one of the working-class grunts that was commanded by the warrior nobility, but who managed to rise from commoner to noble through his military prowess, rather than inheriting a noble title as most in the warrior class do.

No, a stable society remain at a constant level. A declining society is one that loses ground, like your example of the Chinese over time.

The Chinese were not a 'stable' society.

"Were?" China is currently well on its way to becoming the dominant economic and cultural power on Earth, which it's historically been far more often over the past 2000 years than the European West has. Sure, they've had their ups and downs like any society -- Chinese historical theory is based on a cyclical model since they've been through the rise and fall of so many dynasties -- but they've existed as a distinct society and culture for millennia and have been one of the world's dominant powers for most of that time. I'd call that pretty stable, certainly more stable over the long haul than, say, the United States, which is still a juvenile upstart on the historical timescale the Chinese think in.

[stj]

The modern Klingons are incompatible with a functional society, even madeup offscreen ones no one knows anything about. Besides, wouldn't it be more likely that anyone actually doing anything worthwhile in the Klingon Empire would be the occupied planets and the peoples enslaved on them? Except it is painfully obvious that the modern Klingons are too bloodthirsty and moronic even to exploit someone else's labor.

China is not rising to world dominance any more than the Japanese did in the Eighties. The increasing attacks by the government on the socialized elements of the Chinese state and economy will undermine the foundations that allowed the economy to keep growing for decades. As it becomes more capitalist, the economy becomes more unstable. As a late-comer to the modern world economy, China will not be able to carve out an economic empire but will fall prey to the inevitable vicissitudes of unstable capitalist development.

Worse, given the hostility of the US and the existence of a Chinese bourgeoisie seeking revanche against the workers of China and the inherent difficulty of the bureaucracy dividing a shrinking pie during economic depression, the Chinese state is going to collapse in a bloody civil war, which will kill millions. No doubt this will be a source of great satisfaction to Westerners.

[Deks]

Monetary Communism is nothing more than another version of Capitalism - a monetary based system regardless of how you put it - basically a variation on the theme (which is exactly what the Nazi's implemented back in the day - it certainly wasn't 'moneyless').

But fundamentally speaking, Capitalism (or any monetary system) is unsustainable (any system expecting infinite growth on a finite planet is utterly idiotic - not to mention that the pursuit of profits and competition don't do terribly good things for progress - most relevant scientific breakthroughs that forwarded science itself in a meaningful way came from cooperation, not competition - couple that with the notion that money=debt, and you basically have a recipe for disaster - the system is self-defeating and is epitome of inefficiency and incremental technological revisions [not actual breakthroughs or quantum leaps] because its more 'profitable' in the long run).

As for modern day Klingons - well, we've seen some Klingon scientists, but I would have to concur that given how they were perceived in Archer's time, one wouldn't necessarily expect them to be terribly advanced - plus the overall mentality of constant blood-thirst, conquest, wars and conflict that was pushed in a stereotypical capacity is fundamentally unsustainable/unworkable (if EVERY Klingon was like that) - then again, they would probably have to acknowledge the need for doctors and scientists who basically keep everything running (or at least, start everything up - because in order to reverse engineer hur'q tech, they would have to use scientists, engineers, and the likes) - although, this could be remedied if everything is automated (but the writers weren't THAT in tune with technology to begin with) along with self-maintaining machines, machines building machines, etc.
WE already had this technology for some time in the real world... one would imagine Trek universe (the Federation, Klingons and Romulans) would have it by default (any space-faring culture would probably have to implement large portions of automation as a basis because manual labor simply wouldn't cut it at the levels we are talking about - especially if they have any degree of 'sustainability' in mind.
This is why Humanity did it right by eliminating money in Trek. When you do that, you basically get rid of fictional monetary restrictions and focus on what is achievable from resource/technology point of view, keeping in mind sustainability and achieving abundance at the same time (and when you switch to superior synthetic materials - which can be produced in abundance - you basically get a lot higher levels of technology by default because you aren't using materials that are 'cheap' and 'inefficient').

Anyway, one would think while Klingons may not hold scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. in the highest regard... that doesn't mean they wouldn't have or use them.
The warriors we've seen are basically an equivalent to a military that knows how to operate the ships and conduct repairs (even though it could all be automated) - so, from a cultural point of view, they might not view scientists in a good light, but they also know they need them (to at least invent new things - although AI's as seen in Trek would be able to improve upon existing technology on their own to a decent degree - whereas higher levels of creativity might still be delegated to living individuals).

[Edit_XYZ]

T'Girl wrote:

---

Wrong, the Klingon aristocracy were shown to be running the show when it came to who was in power, not the warriors. The Klingon council was composed of two dozen of the most powerful families, the great houses.

Not the warriors.

See Christopher's response for why this particular rationalisation is a few steps too convoluted to be even half-way credible:

"Uhh, no, you're confusing "warrior" with "soldier." The warrior class is the nobility of the Klingon Empire -- the great houses like the House of Duras and the House of Mogh. They're basically like knights in Europe or samurai in Japan -- a class of hereditary nobles who are also the society's military leaders, and whose prestige is largely based in their military identity and power. Martok, by contrast, was a common soldier, one of the working-class grunts that was commanded by the warrior nobility, but who managed to rise from commoner to noble through his military prowess, rather than inheriting a noble title as most in the warrior class do."

I certainly never intended any isolation or 'quarantine.' I was thinking something like the US Marine Corp, who are encouraged to adopt (and be adopted by) a culture separate from the surrounding society.

Last time I checked, the US Marine Corp doesn't rule the USA.

First, my culture venerates 'macho' as a admirable quality (it's only bad if you don't have it I guess).

Then your "culture" really needs to read a few history books.
Bullies with 'we're so rugged' narcissistic tendencies never had any positive effect on their society.

Second, there nothing stupid about being a member of a Motorcycle Club.

So - what achievements did these biker-gangs members ever had?
Care to compare their criminality rate to that of almost any other group?

Third, to be honest there were a few (very few) stupid Klingons in the mix. However, the average Klingon was shown the possess perfectly normal intelligence and judgement. The Klingon we had the most exposure to, Worf, was often shown to be the one in the room who correctly and quickly appraises a situation, while people like Picard completely misunderstood the situation.

Worf is a highly atypical klingon.

The normal klingon as shown in TNG and DS9 - half of the time he is drunk, the other half believes that spouting honor derived rhetoric and blood-lust is a magical replacement for competence in economics and discipline in war - to give just a few examples.

[Drago-Kazov]

Stj posted:

Worse, given the hostility of the US and the existence of a Chinese bourgeoisie seeking revanche against the workers of China

I am pretty sure that the higher echelons always looked down on the chinese workers regardless.

[stj]

^^^The Party bureaucreats' disdain included full employment, education, health care and the "iron rice bowl." These promises were never fulfilled as they were claimed to be. But the Guo Min Dang is actively opposed to even making promises to be broken. In every country suffering capitalist restoration the majority of the population suffered a decline in living standards. A few jumped up to US/European levels of "middle class" living. But the tiny elite that became billionaires made the new bourgeois democracy a sham.

Unless you define freedom as the new ability for young women to whore themselves and the young men to embark on a career in crime, the people are not even free but poor. They're mostly just poorer. I expect that is supposed to be the just price they pay.

[Deks]

When have politics ever solved problems?
I can understand the need for it if you live in a world where most people are lacking in education, but if you educate the entire population with relevant general education from the get go, you wouldn't have a need for governments in the first place because the notion falls apart at such a prospect (people are capable governing themselves and form cooperative unions to work with others on various projects - having a system of access abundance gives you the necessary resources to accomplish various things and solve problems - in a monetary system, this is restricted artificially due to money, even though we have been producing abundance for a long time now).

This is why the notion of governments in the Federation is relatively absurd (because it was implied that everyone would be exposed to relevant general education).
Although, to their credit, I think the writers wanted to make things similar (a bit mistake), and attempted to portray people in positions of power as such who are not prone to being corrupted (because they couldn't envision a society without governments without thinking it would 'inevitably' turn into an 'anarchy' - which is utterly absurd).

However, I can see the government surviving within the Klingon empire. Most of them conform to the notions of combat, glory, honor, etc. Very little relevant general education in the population.
If you noticed, Klingons exposed to Federation values/ideals and even education do not seem to conform to the notions regular Klingons do.
Even Alexander who essentially grew up in the Federation, never really lived up to the status of a warrior (given his 'performance' in that area and only joined the Klingon task force to impress his father mostly) and was hardly bloodthirsty and whatnot.
Worf is a different story - he was a kid that was already ingrained with Klingon cultural values, and as such decided to pursue them on his own vigorously, but as time went on, he also showed less and less of an appeal for combat like regular Klingons.

[T'Girl]

Deks wrote:

---

This is why the notion of governments in the Federation is relatively absurd (because it was implied that everyone would be exposed to relevant general education).

While I would tend to agree that people in the federation would receive a good education, with the exception of those who attended Starfleet academy, where was it ever stated or implies that "everyone would be exposed to relevant general education?"

I can't remember it ever coming up, when was it implies?

[Deks]

Officially, I don't think it was mentioned (on screen that is)... but I do recall that the way Roddenberry laid out the 'rules' clearly implied it, along with how we were told on-screen that Humanity changed its ways... would essentially require exposure to relevant general education of massive proportions [namely everyone] - doable decades ago in real life as well, just not 'profitable' or 'cost efficient'.
A society as one like the Federation wouldn't be able to function otherwise.

Of course, the writers clearly decided to water everything down (in order to make it seem not 'too alien') due to the premise that Trek was a commercialized TV show made for USA populace (for the most part).

[pimp]

I always thought that they acquired technology by conquering other worlds/races similar to the borg strategy. They came they saw and they conquered (taking the good weapons too).